JamesB Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Good article. Reinfores my strongly held view that Hamhuis is excellent. In addition to the Drance article, which is based on 5-on=5 play, I would note that Hammer is also excellent on the PK and pretty good on the PP (when he gets a chance to play PP). How he can fail to be voted as Vancouver's top defenseman amazes me. Just shows that most fans do not really understand the game. Edler is good and has a significant upside, but he has been nowhere near as valuable to the team as Hammer over the past 2 years (as the Drance numbers clearly show). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 WTF is Corsi? So lost on that one otherwise good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obienuck Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Bieksa is always on his bum whenever he throws a hit, so maybe packing some more pounds will be good for him lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Some of us have been saying pretty much the same thing for quite some time, unfortuantely, it often fell on deaf ears. I would add that Bieksa's offensive output last season, compared to the season previous, indicates that Hamhuis' "heavy lifting" was by design. The team knew they needed to replace Ehrhoff's offensive production and they probably didn't believe that Eddie could get it done by himself. I think they asked Juice to take more chances offensively, knowing that they had the absolute best option defensively backing him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I would like to take this article and nail it to Canucklelion's forehead. So tired of the Bieksa hate from people that clearly don't know the game. The article is great but it is obvious to anyone with any hockey acumen that they are a good pairing and a symbiotic relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks_dynasty Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 It's what we knew all along. Keep Hamhuis and Bieksa together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jigsaw99 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 i thought this article is going to be about Bieska and Hamhuis's offseason work out plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monteeun Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Hamhuis - Bieksa Edler - Weber Ballard - Tanev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 meh, don't really care about the numbers, Bieksa, to me, looked uninterested for the majority of the season, seemed slow to the puck, made poor passes and did nothing to deter abuse against the twins despite being the only one on the ice capable of doing so. Hope he ups his game this season so he can return as one of my fav's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I thought this was going to be about how Hamhuis is always carrying Bieksa on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 HAMHUIS, BIEKSA AND HEAVY LIFTING Thomas Drance June 18 2012 03:04PM Kevin Bieksa and Dan Hamhuis: just a couple of guys who know how to clear the crease. Though he's performed as well, or nearly as well, as any defenseman on the roster over the past couple of seasons, Kevin Bieksa's play has been a source of perpetual frustration for many Canucks fans. You know a fanbase has an irrational, bi-polar relationship with a specific player when that player begins to accrue false narratives that "explain" their play. For Roberto Luongo, it's that he's a choker. For Mason Raymond,it's that he's a "perimeter player." For Kevin Bieksa, you can pick your poison - he only plays well in contract years is a popular one, but the idea that he's not good at defense (demonstrably untrue) is another favorite. The way the story is usually told, Kevin Bieksa's defensive play turned around when Dan Hamhuis arrived in Vancouver. Once Hamhuis arrived, Bieksa stopped his positional "swimming" in Vancouver's own end, cut down on his unforced errors with the puck and was magically transformed into a reliable defensive presence along Vancouver's blue-line. Read past the jump for more. Here's what we know for sure: combined, Bieksa and Hamhuis are one of the league's best hybrid shutdown pairings. They can beat opponents with their steady, physical defensive play, but they can also pin the puck in the offensive end and help the team generate offense. They can key the rush with crisp zone-exit passes, and they can suffocate the other team while minimizing the number of corsi-events surrendered. In short, they're like the Super Mario character in any Nintendo Party Game (Mario Kart, Mario Tennis etc.): fast enough to beat the likes of DK with speed, strong enough to overpower Yoshi. What I'm interested in taking a quick, objective gander at, however, is the notion that Dan Hamhuis does the heavy-lifting defensively when the two players are paired together at even-strength. Does the evidence indicate that Hamhuis' presence on Bieksa's left side make Bieksa a stingier defensive player? My hypothesis is that this explanation, commonly held by Canucks fans, just doesn't give Bieksa enough credit. KB3 is, I would argue, a quality defensive option in his own right. Let's see if the numbers back up that hypothesis! The following stats are taken from David Johnston's site stats.hockeyanalysis.com, and what follows is a "With or Without You" (WOWY) table breaking down how Bieksa and Hamhuis perform when they're on the ice together at five-on-five, and when they're on the ice separately (as a result of injury, or AV's latest blender binge, or what have you). I've broken their numbers down based on both goals (for those of you who hate Corsi) and Corsi (because it's really useful and if you don't believe in its qualified utility, you've got your head in the sand) and rated those numbers per sixty minutes. Here's the table: EV TOI Goals For/60 Goals Against/60 GD/60 Corsi Events For/60 Corsi Events Against/60 Corsi Differential/60 Bieksa and Hamhuis 1638:50 3.26 1.9 +1.36 59.84 49.76 +10.07 Just Bieksa 879:30 1.91 2.39 -0.48 59.7 51.3 +8.39 Just Hamhuis 855:58 2.52 2.6 -0.08 61.46 48.49 +12.97 A couple of interesting things to point out. First off is that both Bieksa and Hamhuis have been extraordinarily steady possession players over the past couple of seasons. The Canucks still need another tough minutes defenseman (or two), but at the top of the blueline depth chart: they're rock solid. Secondly, the idea that Hamhuis does the heavy lifting defensively appears to carry weight. After all, the Canucks generate more Corsi events with just Hamhuis on the ice, than with just Bieksa, and surrender fewer against as well. In fact, the team's Corsi differential per sixty minutes with Hamhuis on the ice, isn't just better than the team's differential with just Bieksa on the ice, it's even better than it is when the team rolls with their ace "shutdown pairing." It should be noted, however, that if you look at the WOWY numbers when corrected for zone-starts, Bieksa performs significantly better than he does in the above table (that suggests to me that Bieksa plays tougher minutes without Hamhuis, than Hamhuis does without Bieksa - but we can't know that with any strong degree of certainty). Where the discrepancies emerge is when you look at goals for and against per sixty minutes. Contrary to the idea that Hamhuis is the steadier defensive option among the twosome, the Canucks surrender fewer goals against per sixty with just Bieksa on the ice, than with just Hamhuis. The margin isn't big, in fact, I'd call it statistical noise especially since this piece of analysis doesn't benefit from the on-ice shooting percentage data, zone-starts or quality of competition, but it's interesting. And it's interesting because it directly contradicts the idea that Bieksa is a sieve, who is only reliable defensively as a result of his partnership with Hamhuis. The most important thing to take away from this, however, is that the Canucks surrender significantly fewer goals when both Bieksa and Hamhuis are deployed together, and score significantly more. In terms of goal differential per sixty, both players have been in the red over the past two seasons when separated, but they've been dominant when paired together. Ultimately, it's true that Hamhuis is the better shot preventer, the better all around possession player, and does the "heavy-lifting" on Vancouver's ace defensive pairing. But in terms of what really matters - which, get this, is goals for and against - Hamhuis benefits significantly from his partnership with Kevin Bieksa. The two have a symbiotic type of chemistry. Drance is magic with numbers and this article really sheds some light on our top shutdown pairing. I love Bieksa's all around game and this article reinforces that admiration. hope you enjoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Just imagine Weber with Hamhuis. I wonder what the corsi numbers would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Then you would have Edler with Bieksa. The D would be much more balanced if Weber plays with Edler. I like Bieksa. He's a physical defenseman who can bring offense. That is very valuable. I just wish the coaching staff would let him fight more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanBeef Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Remember the 1st game against Boston? They weren't afraid of pushing Lucic around and actually knocked down Chara a couple of times. Imagine if the series went on with Hamhuis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Regardless of what any numbers say sometimes you can literally see Bieksa's thoughts turn to dust and fizzle towards the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Remember the 1st game against Boston? They weren't afraid of pushing Lucic around and actually knocked down Chara a couple of times. Imagine if the series went on with Hamhuis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex the Great Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It is an advanced statistic that is used to offer a different perspective on how a player a played. How it works is it cherry picks meaningless stats taken by several different unsubstantiated sources and is then plugged into an equation to tell us that Bieksa in fact had a good season when he clearly didn't. It's all BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray_Cathode Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Regardless of what any numbers say sometimes you can literally see Bieksa's thoughts turn to dust and fizzle towards the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Did you actually read what the OP wrote? Why on earth do you think those numbers would be better with Weber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.